1. Has the United States Court of Appeal for the 5th Circuit entered a decision in conflict with the decision of Hughes v. United States 263 F.3D 272, 278 (3rd Cir.2001), which is the decision of another U.S. Court of Appeal on the same important matter, and reason for the U.S. Supreme Court to grant Writ of Certiorari pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court Rule 10 (a)(b)(c)?

2. Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit only state Baugh v, Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997), and Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 202 (5th Cir. 1983) and ignore the arguable legal points clearly defined in the Petitioners Appeal Brief that where nonfrivolous?

3. Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit use Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 409 (1969) in their document filed on April 25th, 2024 to as a substitute for the averment of an official immunity defense and did Respondents Michelle Parham qualify for 28 U.S.C. 1442 (a) (1)?

4. Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit use Joiner v. United States, 955 F.3d 399, 403 (5th Cir. 2020, and Life Partners Inc. v. United States, 650 F.3d 1026, 1029 (5th Cir. 2011) correct in their statement on page 2 of Appendix A; stating that the Petitioner had failed in his contention that the district court had erred in granting sovereign immunity to the Federal Defendants?

5. Did the Petitioner make a cogent argument that the district court erred in determining that his claims against the Federal Defendants were not with the scope of the FTCA and that the discretionary function exception did not apply?

6. Has the Petitioner filed an administrative claim with CAG pursuant to FTCA, and did the district courts pass motions to dismiss lawfully pursuant their own court procedures?

7. Did Petitioner demonstrate a nonfrivolous issue in his appeal about the district court improper procedure by the district judges, and is the improper procedure of the district judges ' reason to grant Writ of Certiorari pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court Rule 10 (a)?

8. Does Petitioner raise a nonfrivolous issue of judicial bias?

9. Was Petitioners concern that his appeal may be barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C 636 (b)(1)(C) and Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc) without foundation?

10. Did Petitioner qualify for IFP?

11. Was this case dismissed with congressional intent as frivolous pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 42.2.?

Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit improperly applied precedent and misinterpreted statutory immunity defenses in a manner conflicting with other Circuit Court decisions